The lack of -context- irks me far more than any other issue here - particularly when the context is so damning.
I’m always more frustrated with those with facts on their side when they fail to argue properly than with those who are wrong. Being wrong is easy - the burden of argument is on the intelligent - not the slow witted.
Are you actually serious? Did you miss the all the videos of the mob battling police? How do you think that cop was killed (hint: he was hit in the head with a fire extinguisher)? Yes, there were some videos of cops basically giving up and retreating from being outnumbered, but to say "no one really even tried to stop them. That sentiment seems true on its face." is just bullshit.
That's an impressive attempt to rescue the statement, but he didn't say “No Trump supporter scaled the walls”, he said “No one who scaled the walls was a Trump supporter.” While in a formal logic sense, of no one scaled the walls the latter would be true, it's not something anyone basically familiar with spoken English would use to express that concept; it is what you would say to acknowledge that the wall was scaled and deny the people doing it were Trump supporters.
And, in any case, forcible entry did occur, both through positions on the perimeter surrounding the building (prompting the perimeter to be generally collapsed as the guards at other points were then surrounded) and at some of the external entrances to the building (of which there is video), and at internal barricades (in one case, prompting deadly force to keep the mob away from withdrawing threatened civilians.)
And in some of those cases, there were people known to have been Trump supporters involved.
So, it's both an implausible interpretation and even if it was what he was claiming pretty clearly false, too.
I have to say, if you don't recognize the ambiguity it contains, you don't have a strong grasp on the language or you were not reading what was written. He's either saying that they weren't Trump people or that they weren't scaling the walls. It's not obvious which one he means.
That's not an opinion, it's a statement of fact whose truth can be evaluated. About the only thing that is even slightly ambiguous is how you define "Trump people", but given that essentially every person that has been identified in the insurrection has been shown to have documented pro-Trump views, what else would you call them?
So what about this statement isn't provably false to you?